賴特:卡森40年來沒有和我溝通他對我觀點的曲解,此非「朋友之道」

筆者很幸運地在卡森的台北講座之後,寫信給賴特得到了他本人的書面回應。 在信中,我基本上將我前文及下方評論提出的重大疑惑告知賴特,希望他為好奇的台灣讀者提供一些書單或他自己的評價(及給筆者個人研究指引):

…Dr. Carson had used the chance to raise many of the old critiques against NPP with which I was already familiar through my TEDS classroom experience with him. But there are still many things I do not know how you would (or if you have) personally respond, such as the critique against your and NPP scholars’ “Greek exegesis” of justification (δικαιοσύνη) in terms of covenantal inclusion as an unfaithful semantic stretch (and so is τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in terms of Judaizing boundary marking legal practices, which is yet another critique, though originally by Dr. Doug Moo, that got brought up this time).

I remember listening to your lecture in person in which you mentioned have responded to this critique in written form. I just wonder if you could direct me to the best literature that does exegetical justice to the view of δικαιοσύνη (and Hebrew צַדִּ֛יק) as covenantal entitlement?

另外因為台灣這幾天一直有支持卡森的人嘗試鋪陳一種觀念,就是那些聽起來像是「背後捅人」的人身評語是「出自西方學者的私交/幽默」、「卡森之前都有跟賴特私底下提過了」,但在我當面聆聽賴特的經驗中,賴特卻並不感覺如此-他覺得很惱人,並且一直在寬忍。而一些沒能正確閱讀筆者文意和語境的人,也竟然將批評轉移到筆者的人身,因此這次我信中有約略提及交誼這點:

…But basically we are made to assume that Tom and Don are old rivals as well as good friends, and what Don said cannot surprised Tom the way it did some of us who heard him the first time.

賴特在信中提到卡森時,很明確地回應這項在學術之外也被關切的事:「我們在40年前曾是朋友(即兩人都大約30歲,並且按照卡森說法,是卡森還將賴特視為同一保守神學陣營時),然而很遺憾地此後他未曾嘗試聯繫我,或和我確認他談論我時可能的曲解,這實在難以稱為朋友之道。

Capture

 

至於賴特是否不懂希臘文,或在「稱義」視為「擺正關係」、「置入盟約群體」時,沒有正確地研究原文語義?賴特在 Expository Times 期刊將刊出但還未正式刊出的一篇論文〈Translating dikaiosyne: a response〉給予了最新的回應,回應對象是西澳浸信會神學院的新約教授穆爾(Dr Richard Moore),也是針對魏斯特鴻(Stephen Westerholm)《再思稱義》(Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking A Pauline Theme, 2013 )一書第四章的回應。(至於卡森在此領域的研究,以近年學術論文發表的狀態,尚未如上述兩位福音派學者來得前延和深入。)

筆者有幸得到賴特賜文,也將文章大略讀過,有興趣知悉者,我將重點貼上如下。

首先,穆爾的文章提到稱義(justification; δικαιοσύνη)一詞可以被理解的三個方向,包含「正確關係」,而賴特早已表明自己支持「正確關係」的理解。卡森在各處講座中的批判已明顯顯示他對「稱義」的字詞理解比穆爾的還滯後:

So how should we translate dikaiosyne? … the titles of his [Moore’s] works offer three possibilities: ‘rectification’ (the term preferred by J. L. Martyn and his followers, but I suspect with a different meaning to Moore’s), ‘justification’, and the language of ‘right relation’. I am, he may be surprised to learn, happy with ‘right relation’ – provided only that the ‘relation’ in question is precisely the covenant relationship, which is of course what he resists.

 

當然,穆爾和賴特對於「擺正關係」的語境理解並不太一樣。穆爾對 δικαιοσύνη一希臘文字詞研究的論文〈DIKAIOSUNJ AND COGNATES IN PAUL: THE SEMANTIC GULF BETWEEN TWO MAJOR LEXICONS (BAUER-ARNDT-GINGRICH-DANKER AND LOUW-NIDA)〉(可點擊連結下載閱讀) 我也在此摘要一段核心看法,與賴特對照:

In three places in Galatians and Romans Paul relates one of the three dikai words to the word theos by means of a preposition:

τι δν νμ οδες δικαιοται παρ τ θε δλον(在神面前,沒有一個人可以靠著律法稱義), τι δκαιος κ πστεως ζσεται· (Gal 3:11 BGT)

οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται (原來在 神面前、不是聽律法的為義、乃是行律法的稱義). (Rom 2:13 BGT)

διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας (沒有一個人可以靠行律法,在 神面前得稱為義,因為藉著律法,人對於罪才有充分的認識。). (Rom 3:20 BGT)

Here Paul is speaking of ‘right’ (the adjective) and of ‘setting right’ (the verb) in a particular relationship to God, ‘right’ as it is seen from God’s perspective . This is not a usage one finds in Greek prior to the New Testament;21 Paul achieves this effect by the use of bridging prepositions which are, however, very common in everyday Greek. In doing so, however, he [Paul] creates a new concept: what is right from the divine perspective or viewpoint, what God regards as right, or who God regards as being in a right relationship with himself.

 

這些非常密集的希臘文討論,適合參照手邊的原文與神學辭典。然而賴特提供了一份註腳清單,證明δικαιοσύνη 在七十士譯本就是用來處理 tsedaqah (צְדָקָה,希伯來文的「義」),tsedaqah 毫無疑問經常是盟約處境中的語言。

But the covenant relationship between God and his people looms large in the biblical texts Paul is quoting or echoing « the Septuagint », where dikaiosyne and its cognates frequently render tsedaqah and its cognates. And tsedaqah regularly carries covenantal meanings of which the Greek dikaiosyne would otherwise have been innocent, but with which it is thereby regularly invested. A glance at basic dictionaries strongly confirms this, [FOOTNOTE: Seebass and Brown in NIDNTT 3.355-7, 363; Schrenk in TDNT 2.195; Hays in ADB 3.1120, 1131f.; Reumann in ABD 5.471, etc.] as does a further glance at standard secondary texts. [FOOTNOTE: e.g. Ziesler 1972, 20, 37-9, citing older studies; Eichrodt 1961, 1.241f.; von Rad 1973, 185.] Dr Moore makes no attempt to refute this widely-held position.

When Paul, with the Septuagint in his head, uses dikaiosyne, the word is capable of carrying a dense, interwoven range of meaning for which there is no single English word in sight. Hence we must paraphrase. …

 

筆者個人也在查原文聖經辯析tsedaqah 的語境時,讀到幾段表面上就很顯著的經文。如雅各對拉班的抗辯:「以後你來查看我的工價、凡在我手裡的山羊不是有點有斑的、綿羊不是黑色的、那就算是我偷的.這樣、便可證出我的公義( צִדְקָתִי֙ )來。」(創30:33)很明顯,比起外部審判法庭的用語,這在近東文明中,更是一個 contract bound 的語言,被雅各用來處理他和拉班{在上帝面前}的「契約關係」,是「參與性的倫理」而非康德邏輯推理式的道德義務。

其他例子包含詩篇:「他們必大大震驚,因為神在義人的群體中( אֱ֜לֹהִ֗ים בְּד֣וֹר צַדִּֽיק )。」(詩篇14:5)以賽亞的預言:「我使我的公義臨近了,必不遠離;我的救恩必不遲延。我要為以色列,我的榮耀,在錫安施行拯救。」(賽:46:13)這些都是盟約的義、群體的義、上帝基於自身守約信實(faithfulness of God)的義。

然後在接下來這段中,賴特和穆爾已經完全不是在爭論字詞本身,而是如我上面引用穆爾文章段落所說的,穆爾認為是保羅靠希臘文介繫詞的變戲法,進行了(不同於原初希伯來神學語境的)神學觀點創新,即一種「與神關係和好的因信稱義」。這個觀點雖然和賴特表面上有點殊途同歸,但對賴特現在陷入的二殿典籍學術討論中,會製造非常龐大的夾擊壓力。因此賴特並不採取這種做法,而是傾向保羅仍然是從七十士譯本的希臘文理解、以及在舊約當中汲取原本就存在的希伯來神學概念,即一以貫之的盟約神學:

But does Paul really retain the covenantal associations of LXX dikaiosyne, or has he gone in a different direction? Has he, as some in Reformed circles insist, simply used the normal meaning of ‘moral goodness’? This is of course frequent in both Testaments, and is often invoked to fund the ‘covenant of works’ view of ‘justification’ popular in some Reformed circles (‘we need “righteousness” in terms of “moral goodness”; we don’t have any; Jesus has plenty, and it gets “imputed” to us). Or has he, as I think Moore is suggesting, spoken of a ‘right relationship’, in terms either of a legal ‘standing’ or a ‘personal relationship with God’ in an existential or spiritual sense? That is how a non-covenantal and often individualistic protestant reading of Paul has taken it. This is where Moore seems to be going. But is that true to Paul?

在以上這段,賴特說明了兩種在改革宗與改教圈內經常採用的理解,一是把「義」理解為「道德上的善」,我們因信耶穌,就得到耶穌為我們披上義袍,遮蓋我們的惡、轉嫁了「善」給我們。二是在抽象神學形上學中,以法庭邏輯或存在主義思維操作,就會得出比較個人化的稱義。二當然比一還要接近賴特的看法,但他認為光是這樣顯然還是遠遠不能正確理解保羅和聖經神學的。

尤其是在羅馬書4:3 以及加拉太書 3:6 為保羅所引用的「亞伯蘭信耶和華、耶和華就以此為他的義」(創15:6)替賴特提供了強烈的聖經神學論述,肯定這些在希伯來聖經、七十士譯本就是約的語言、約的神學。

Romans 4.3 and Galatians 3.6 both quote Genesis 15.6. But Genesis 15 is all about God’s double promise to Abraham (a huge, uncountable ‘seed’, and a territorial ‘inheritance’). These are then guaranteed by the establishment of the covenant, which also specifies that the inheritance will be gained through rescue from slavery (Genesis 15.7-21). Does Paul have this larger picture of Genesis 15 in mind? Emphatically yes. Both the ‘seed’ and the ‘inheritance’ are major themes in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 4.1-7, and more extensively in Romans 6—8, these are accomplished precisely through the exodus-like rescue of slaves.

But can elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen really mean that God ‘established a covenant with him’? Again, emphatically yes. In Numbers 25.6-13 Phinehas intervenes to stop the Israelite immorality, and God establishes with him ‘a covenant of perpetual priesthood’. This is echoed exactly in ben-Sirach 45.23-25 and 1 Maccabees 2.54. But when the same episode is summarized in Psalm 106.28-31, the shorthand way of saying ‘and so God established a covenant with him’ is the same phrase that we find in Genesis 15.6. At least, the Hebrew is virtually identical; the Septuagint (Psalm 105.31) is exactly the same, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen.

The fact that the verse concludes ‘from generation to generation for ever’ indicates that this ‘reckoning of righteousness’ does indeed refer to the establishment of the covenant spoken of in Numbers and elsewhere. Granted the well-known covenantal overtones of tsedaqah, and hence of dikaiosyne when used to translate it (see the scholars quoted above), this construction, though occurring only in these two passages, is perfectly comprehensible.

綜上所述,也就不難理解,為何賴特認為有些對他的攻擊是顯得相當不負責任的。在信中他說:

[T]he traditionalists such as Dr Carson… want to preserve the ‘covenant of works’ scheme (God gave Adam a command so that he could obey it and have life; he disobeyed; Jesus obeyed instead and we benefit from his ‘righteousness’ in terms of legal/moral obedience – is that not how it goes?). This is a radical distortion of Genesis, never mind Paul; in Genesis, Adam has a VOCATION, and by his sin he fails in it; God calls Abraham and gives him the parallel vocation, only now to reverse the situation . . . etc etc. Carson and co simply don’t want to see any elements of this – though it is clear in Paul, esp in Romans – and so throw mud at people like me who are basically trying to read the text!

他們明明講的聖經神學就是盟約神學,可是當人們(賴特)從原文證據仔細地以盟約觀念貫穿聖經-包含保羅對因信稱義的理解時,他們認為這是種冒犯。而筆者認為成見、累積的學術聲望,或既定立場與門戶之見都時常會超越我們對聖經和邏輯觀念的順服。這使解經成為一項複雜的任務,也十分值得靜下心來在學習聖經的過程當中思量。

2010-04-17 15-36-21  IMGP8471
(photo by Mu-tien Chiou, 2010)
Publicités

3 réflexions sur « 賴特:卡森40年來沒有和我溝通他對我觀點的曲解,此非「朋友之道」 »

  1. Studies of Bible in Asia crave wisdom from Wright? XXDDD Well, you taught me how to catch the attention of a magnificent scholar like him.

    About « 穆爾認為是保羅靠希臘文介繫詞的變戲法,進行了(不同於原初希伯來神學語境的)神學觀點創新,即一種「與神關係和好的因信稱義」。這個觀點雖然和賴特表面上有點殊途同歸,但對賴特現在陷入的二殿典籍學術討論中,會製造非常龐大的夾擊壓力。 » can you offer more explanation? What is the « 夾擊壓力 »?

    1. If we start our journey of thought from the base assumption (which I suspect is sincerely true) that both Moore and Wright agree with the ‘right relation’ definition of δικαιοσύνη, every thing is then clearer.

      Moore attributed the ‘right relation’ turn to a Pauline deviation from traditional Hebrew thought (which has subsequently been reflected in the LXX), and this is why he hypothesized a Greek proposition trick was intended by Paul to bolster the Pauline sophisticated notion of justification.

      As I said, Wright does not want this to be focus on Paul’s own innovation, even though he is indeed happy with undergirding the whole idea of δικαιοσύνη onto ‘right [communal/interpersonal] relation.’ He wants to undergird Paul’s post-Damascus soteriological project primarily within his Jewish context.

      Hence we get people who disagree with Wright on the one hand trying to debase the ‘right relation’ element in favor of an individualistic forensic account of justification/rectification, and people like Moore on the other hand who, though seemingly offer ‘right relation’ as a way to render δικαιοσύνη, are in fact unplugging Pauline theology from its most important Hebrew roots. This forms a double pressure against Wright.

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s